Sweden being the central point of everything worthwhile, and from where
all things - good and bad - stem (culture, atheism and of course all
human languages), I'm sure you've all heard about how the Swedish
migration board deported a couple of Egyptians a few years back so they
could be properly tortured as the terrorists they turned out not to be. I'm
sure you've also heard many more stories over the last couple of years,
as they have been embarrasingly many for a country who's people think it
is in the lead of human rights watch and civilized progress, but this one
takes the price.
😞
Housang Makhdoom is to be deported by plane back to Iran where he
came from. This is an old man, and several Swedish doctors have
testified that he may actually die if he travels by air (something about a
weak heart on thirty thousand feet and the airpressure that pursues not
being a good combination).
Will that stop the Swedish migration board from deporting this old man by
airplane?
No.
Oh, no, not emotional drivel again, you say? Well, no. The migration
board representatives have stated that they believe he can survive the
flight with the proper medical attention, so they're determined to deport
him. I'm not questioning their decision to deport him per se. I know too
little to do that. What I want to hear opinions about is if the decision
of what transportation means to use should be up to the migration board
or a group of qualified doctors?
Isn't the migration board supposed to decide if he can or cannot stay in
Sweden? The transportation to use should not be based on cost (in my
opinion) when there are medical reasons for choosing a different means
of transport (if any).
And also, shouldn't the people responsible for that decision be
prosecuted in court if he really does die? They do know he's got a weak
heart, and they've been warned it's likely to happen, and yet they go
ahead with the decision. Surely that's murder?
Disclaimer of accuracy: The article is written by one of the more
questionable newspapers in Sweden, and I haven't seen the story in any
of the bigger ones, but let's assume that the migration board really is
deporting this man against the recommendation of the doctors (which
wouldn't surprise me at all given the last couple of years), and we have a
debate.
The article is in Swedish, but remember: All languages originate in
Swedish, so just focus and you'll understand it: 😛
http://www.metro.se/se/article/2008/05/22/22/4841-62/index.xml
Originally posted by JigtieThis is nothing!
Sweden being the central point of everything worthwhile, and from where
all things - good and bad - stem (culture, atheism and of course all
human languages), I'm sure you've all heard about how the Swedish
migration board deported a couple of Egyptians a few years back so they
could be properly tortured as the terrorists they turned out not to be. I' ...[text shortened]... rstand it: 😛
http://www.metro.se/se/article/2008/05/22/22/4841-62/index.xml
Holland doesn't just send them back, they hand over dossiers to the governments, so that they have all the information they need.
However, in ex-ministers Verdonk's defence, she did apologise to the relatives after 2 ex-refugees were returned to (I believe the Congo) their homeland, torture and murder.
Originally posted by JigtieIt depends on what you mean by 'qualified doctors'.
What I want to hear opinions about is if the decision
of what transportation means to use should be up to the migration board
or a group of qualified doctors?
It is quite likely that the doctors against his flight were hired by the complainant and that the migration board consulted some other doctors that they hired who gave a different opinion. So the real question is probably which group is more likely to have had its recommendations influenced by their employers.
Originally posted by shavixmirdid she include something meaningful with the apology, like starbucks coupons?
This is nothing!
Holland doesn't just send them back, they hand over dossiers to the governments, so that they have all the information they need.
However, in ex-ministers Verdonk's defence, she did apologise to the relatives after 2 ex-refugees were returned to (I believe the Congo) their homeland, torture and murder.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI can't be sure about this, but I think the doctors in this case (two of
It depends on what you mean by 'qualified doctors'.
It is quite likely that the doctors against his flight were hired by the complainant and that the migration board consulted some other doctors that they hired who gave a different opinion. So the real question is probably which group is more likely to have had its recommendations influenced by their employers.
them) were state employed. The man has recently been treated for a
series of heart attacks, but it doesn't say if the doctors are the same.
I don't think they're very inclined to do anyone a favour like that. See,
Sweden is getting cold. Real cold, and unfriendly even.
If that's a good or bad thing is another debate entirely. My question is if
the migration board shouldn't be limited to making a decision about
whether or not a person should be deported, and then the doctors make
the decision whether or not the person is suitably healthy to make the trip
or not.
In this article, there's nothing about the migration board representatives
consulting other doctors. Instead, they're saying that their interpretation
of the doctors report is that the man can make the trip provided he has
medical attention during the trip. Maybe, maybe not. The doctors advice
against it.